Skylorde wrote:I'm not defending Hannity & Limbaugh and you side stepped the point with semantics so let me rephrase; do you really think Randi Rhodes, for example, doesn't lie?
Since the Doctrine is applicable to all, I fail to see what you're driving at.
Does she lie to the same mendacious lengths of Limbaugh, whose stock in trade is 99% fact-free bullshit?
From what I've heard, I'd say no, but lies are bound to happen in any live medium.
Skylorde wrote:Stupidity & absurdity invites mockery. Olbermann should follow Mark Twain's advice.
Like satellite being out of the censorship reach of the FCC, cable wouldn't be covered by the Doctrine.
It's a public airwaves thing.
So what does Olbermann have to do with anything?
Skylorde wrote:Hmmm. In checking the Constitution, I must have missed the "talk radio" exclusion for freedom of speech. Just because something is law does not make it Constitutional. Just ask the queens in your party how they feel about any laws banning gay marriage. Slavery was Constitutional at one time too, why don't you make the same argument?
Yeh, i'm sure that's exactly what Reagan had in mind when he repealed it.
Why, he was concerned about ensuring the future health of this country's civic dialogue, of course!
There is less "free speech" as a result of the Doctrine being overturned, not more.
Like the FCC's current efforts to allow newspapers and broadcasters to merge, the decision was all about profit$.
Skylorde wrote:I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough. -- Bill Ayres, NY Times article headlined "No Regrets for a Love of Explosives.", 9-11-2001
Guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country. -- Bill Ayres, NY Times, 9-11-2001
I can't imagine entirely dismissing the possibility -- Bill Ayres (in reference to ever using bombs again in the book "Fugitive Days")
Sounds like a changed man, a man who's moved on!
Some of these are out of context, some aren't.
I'm not gonna go through it again, I just think we should interview his students before casting judgement.